Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2 March 4 >

March 3[edit]


Template:JFA player start[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JFA player start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only one transclusion, no useful content except a table header which can be substituted... mabdul 23:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:JFA player end[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JFA player end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

this is only a table end... subst and the page size even gets smaller... mabdury56 y627s b bqw 2ewd ico 89 jk hrereuiirrrrrerg3hohrgergergergergergeul 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:7462367
etion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:JFA player[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:JFA player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"useless template" - is mostly the same as the "coded" table (only one page trasclusion - subst and delete!) mabdul 23:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox dava[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox dava (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} or {{Infobox archaeological site}}. Only 91 transclusions. "Dava" is the Geto-Dacian name for a city, town or fortress. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - As a supporter of cultural diversity, I'm seeing the infobox as reference to a specific culture strongly related to historical and cultural evidence of Dacians. As a particularity the infobox has a field specifying the Dacian hegemonic tribe. I see no reason to change the infobox if the current one fits better to the subject. The same rule is applied to persons and saints: there are two different infoboxes for each case. Regarding infoboxes, as saint is a specialization of person, a dava is a specialization of ancient settlement/archaeological site. If there are missing fields in dava infobox, please tell me. Those who claim dava infobox redundant do not have a full perspective of Dacian history and, as consequence, it is absurd to have a strong opinion about that. -- Saturnian (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 06:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This is a specialized template for Dacian cities and fortresses. Many of them are not identified in the field yet, so {{Infobox archaeological site}} doesn't work, while {{Infobox settlement}} is too generic. This is all work in progress, more fields are planned to be added to the box. It is used in a series of articles which are one of the main projects of WP:DACIA. I notified the author, which I believe you should have done as part of the procedure.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is arguing that this is not a "specialized template for Dacian cities and fortresses"; however, you fail to state why you believe a "specialized template for Dacian cities and fortresses" is needed. In what way is {{Infobox settlement}}, which is used for tens of thousands of individual settlements "too generic"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The {{Infobox settlement}} doesn't cover the following fields built_during_reign_of, abandoned, attested_by, previous_fortification, ref:RO:LMI, ref:RO:RAN, discovery_year, condition, controlled_by, excavations, archaeologists. It also appear to target current settlements with no focus on ancient sites, history and archeology. They might look the same or redundant to an untrained eye, but if you are willing to look deeper they are not. As I already mentioned {{Infobox archaeological site}} doesn't apply for many of them. So one important reason to have specialized infobox is consistency. I don't think it would look good at all to have 75% of the davae with {{Infobox settlement}} since they are not discovered archaeologically yet, and 25% with {{Infobox archaeological site}}. The other important reason is that the articles are part of a series/class of fortified settlements. And before going around and deleting other people's work left and right, are you willing and ready to properly replace the {{Infobox dava}} with {{Infobox settlement}} in all 91 articles or you just plan to cripple them and lose all the information collected in the templates? If you really want to do something useful, you should create a cross between {{Infobox settlement}} or {{Infobox archaeological site}} named {{Infobox ancient settlement}}. That is the only thing that could be generic enough and arguably replace {{Infobox dava}}, if you really insist. But it is nothing wrong in having a specialized infobox for a series of related articles, capturing their specific attributes in a uniform fashion. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please explain why those particular fields are needed, cannot use more generic fields, and, indeed, what those prefixed "Ref" mean. And no, nobody plans to "cripple [articles] and lose all the information collected". Please try to avoid such FUD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to {{Infobox ancient settlement}} as proposed above ;) (and populate it). mabdul 19:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only 91?! I think that's enough items to have its own template. A template is suppose to be useful. You can't just stick all ancient settlements together, or the template would be too large and useless, plus what do all these places have in common other than being ancient? Not a good way to classify things. Should be done by group. Dream Focus 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with DF's dumbfoundness, "only" 91 is quite a lot of transclusions. This is a useful and well-used template, there is no policy-based reason to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 91 article sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Should the infobox turn out to be redundant, it can always be delated later. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. (not sure why) Diego (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing, as noted at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Template:Infobox dava. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons stated above. Infoboxes represent an excellent to portray information about an example of a particular subject, since they offer an easy way to make comparisons. They are a good way to embellish articles that are light on for content. The nomination constitutes a form of cultural bias. Flaviusvulso (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox iPod[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox iPod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; redundant to {{Infobox information appliance}}, with which I have replaced the only instance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—orphaned. Imzadi 1979 → 06:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no use for that. Can't be populated... mabdul 19:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete orphaned, no possible use extra999 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Expand further[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. (non-admin closure) Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand further (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The last TFD was closed as no consensus due to a complete lack of parity from !voters — everyone was !voting a completely different thing. I think this needs another looking-at to regather consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's entirely too non-specific and isn't helpful to readers or editors. SilverserenC 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with reasoning above. henrik•talk 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where is the history of the last TfD? When did it occur? I want to refrain from expressing an opinion until I can examine that, so if nominator would do the favor of including that, I'd appreciate it. - Jorgath (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close give it a rest, take it up in March (or later). This was nominated and it got a full and active hearing at the beginning of February. Couldn't you just wait a bit before reopening it? Twice a month is a bit much. If you didn't like it being closed, and wanted a longer hearing, you should get it relisted from WP:DRV. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. If the nominator thinks the TfD close or the discussion was unsatisfactory he should take the matter to DRV from where a second TFD could be launched by consensus. In other words I agree with 70.24.251.71 Thincat (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and investigate possible behavior problem. While it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion that nominating a template for deletion twice in one month less that a month after the last nomination is a problem, it does suggest the possibility of gaming the system by nomination a page over and over in the hopes that this time the deletion will stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since TPH wasn't the prior nominator, this entire comment is completely irrelevant. SilverserenC 05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. While nominating a page for deletion twice in 18 days would be worse, nominating something 18 days after someone else nominated it is still a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not if the vote turns to delete. And your "behavioral problem" comment above is a personal attack against TPH, especially in the light of your comment being incorrect. SilverserenC 20:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was not incorrect. You misread it, probably because my statement was ambiguous (but not incorrect). It is problem behavior when an editor nominates a page for deletion 18 days after the last nomination. That is too soon. I did not post a personal attack. One is allowed to discuss and even disagree with a Wikipedia editor's on-wiki behavior without it being an attack. As for "Not if the vote turns to delete", you are implying that I can nominate something for deletion again and again hoping that this time the keep votes will overlook it, be on vacation, etc. and that this would be acceptable behavior if my strategy worked. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it had closed with any form of keep, I would agree with you. Which would be most situations. But templates aren't the sort of thing that merge discussions or other options can apply to. This is all there is. And the prior discussion ended in no consensus. Thus, it's proper to form a new discussion to try to get consensus one way or the other. SilverserenC 21:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[T]emplates aren't the sort of thing that merge discussions or other options can apply to" - You would think. However {{Expand}} was deleted partly on the basis that we had more specialised templates available (including {{Incomplete}}). {{Tlx|Incomplete was "merged" to {{Expand further}} a week or so ago. Essentially this template now bears the bulk of the load for articles that need specific expansion. (Note that the people - often the same people - are arguing for deletion of tags as "too specialised" and as "too general" - one might think they just want rid of tags - which is fine but that should be an RFC not a war of attrition.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment/Question. why do Template:Expand further and Template:Incomplete both have messages that say "This template (Expand further) is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy"? Why does only one of them have a "This template was considered for deletion on..." notice on the talk page? They have different wordings (close but not the same) and different "What links here" lists, so it doesn't look like a merge. TenPoundHammer only tagged one of the two. What am I missing here? Are we voting on deleting two templates instead of one? If so, is there a third or a fourth I don't know about? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a leftover from the last TFD for {{Expand further}}, into which {{incomplete}} was bundled. It was just never removed. (Also, I was not the nominator the last time around.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I was not in any way implying that TenPoundHammer had anything to do with the odd two-template effect I described. He appears to have done everything correctly. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This really looks like "Nominate and nominate until I get my way." SilverSeren would possibly be right that it is "entirely too specific" except the most ridiculous merge of {{Incomplete}} happened. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This is just another "I'm too lazy to fix up this article, how about you do the work for me" template that aids neither the reader nor the editor. Resolute 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, including information in its documentation how to include specific suggestions – The Expand further template provides a useful tag to alert readers that an article could use expansion. A potential problem exists in the merging of the {{Incomplete}} with the {{Expand further}} template that occurred recently. It appears that if the Expand further template is deleted, the Incomplete template will also be removed. I preferred the Incomplete template as it was worded until recently, when it stated, "This article is incomplete. Please help to improve the article, or discuss the issue on the talk page."
Just a note, in the template's current documentation, there's a segment that reads, ..."However a bunch of people who did not understand the hereinbefore purpose !voted to merge the template "Incomplete" here. Therefore if you don't want to explicitly point to the "Further reading" section, you will need to set "further = no"."
It's already possible for users to include specific suggestions, but this is currently not included in the Expand further template's documentation. Also, users have to begin their sentence with the text "article." and omit a period at the sentence's end for the text to render properly. Here's example text of including suggestions:
{{Expand further|date=February 2012|article. Here's an example of including specific instructions, but information about how to do so isn't in the template's documentation. Also, users' have to manually type "article." for the text to render properly, and omit a period at the end of the sentence}}
Which creates:

The same goes for the Incomplete template: it's possible to include specific suggestions, but the template's documentation doesn't include instructions for users about how to do so.

—Northamerica1000(talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (1) In reference to 70.24.251.71's comment — there's nothing wrong with renominating a page that was recently discussed if the discussion resulted in no consensus. The problem is when someone renominates something that was recently discussed with a keep result. (2) There have actually been two TFDs for this template in the past: 2012 February 2, which the nominator mentions, and 2010 June 23, which resulted in a keep. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Northamerica1000. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Northamerica1000. Agent 78787 talk contribs 00:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the discussion above. - jc37 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I completely agree with Seren's comments, but I would add that a tag like this is redundant and unnecessary. We have many different tags to indicate that an article is a work in progress. We also generally understand that pretty much every article, if not every article, is a work in progress and thus all are "incomplete" or need to be expanded. Focus should be on finding specific tags that can more directly address what needs to be done with an article. Tags like what Resolute mentioned aren't inherently a problem as there are many reasons why someone will not or can not make contributions to an article yet still be able to recognize issues the article has, but in this case it is essentially a tag for people who can't think of the specific problem or are too lazy to find a tag for it. It doesn't really achieve anything to say "this article should be bigger" when there are plenty of other tags that will actually say something helpful.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-this template does serve as a counterpart to {{expand section}}. Unless this template can be combined with the "expand section" template by using a |section=yes parameter, then it should be kept. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another awful reincarnation of Template:Expand. All non-featured articles could arguably be tagged with this, as all non-featured articles could use additional information. We already have Template:Stub and Template:Expand-section, and they both serve their purpose. However, we don't need a cleanup tag that tells the reader that more information is needed. Specific expansion issues should be brought up on the talk page, not in the article itself. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Heaven forbid, people don't ever want us to admit that an article is woefully inadequate! Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something has to be kept. I actually personally don't think that {{incomplete}} should have been merged. While most/all articles are incomplete/should be expanded, it is helpful to have a tag to mark an article as woefully incomplete. Take for example this old edit of the article "History of deaf education in the United States". That version (which was the "top" edit until 10 January 2012) covered, at most, 20 years in an article that should have had at least a 200-year timespan. You cannot say that that article couldn't have used some sort of tag saying that it should be much more complete. In fact, the presence of such a tag (along with the incompleteness itself; I noticed the tag first) pushed me to edit the article to include a broader span of the history. And no, not every editor will notice that an article is incomplete just by looking at it, especially if it's something like a history-related article that's missing information off the "front" of its timeline. A template like this one (or the now-defunct {{incomplete}}) is needed for situations like the one I just described. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • -Delete I agree with Resolute. So many lazy editors just plop this in rather than take the time to work on an article themselves.12:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: merging 'incomplete' template here was ridiculous enough. I've found this template useful in indicating that all the information in the sources is not comprehensively covered in the article and actually used that to add in. Deleting the template is just hiding the issues under the carpet. Also agree with Northamerica1000 and Rich Farmbrough. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decapitate. It is highly recommended to change it to Expand article. Web+TV+3=WebTV3! (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alpha_Quadrant; @Northamerica1000 The "article." is not mentioned (I guess) because you can also use "section." - at least this can simply added by the extra parameter |section if you want. mabdul 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find it very, very useful in indicating further sources and giving hints to other editors on what to contribute. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I sometimes use it to point out that an article I've recently created does have stuff to be said about it, that I am personally intending to complete it, and if anyone else can help along the way, then even better. But I don't always have the time to do it immediately, and there are just too many editors who just love to delete short new articles, and this template helps to hopefully get someone to expand it enough before that happens. also, the template is simple enough to use - two words, easy to remember when in a hurry. The fact that it's "too general" is an advantage, as it saves you having to trawl through technical pages to find just the right template. Sometimes simple things are an good! BigSteve (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We use cleanup templates to draw attention to fixable problems. I am unconvinced that this template articulates anything resembling a fixable problem. An article's incompleteness is tracked at WP:1.0/A; it isn't a problem per se because it's perfectly natural for articles to be incomplete. Like many other problematic templates, this template does not make clear when it should be removed. This is incredibly problematic due to drive-by tagging. If a template doesn't indicate this, the supposed problem it represents is not, in a sense, "fixable" since there's no way to know when you've fixed it. I suppose one could remove this from featured articles, but anything less is presumably incomplete. The real problem is that, basically, this template applies to any non-FA that has potential sources. The property of having potential sources is not a fixable problem, and as such, it should not be fetishized in mainspace. --NYKevin @030, i.e. 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found this TfD by looking at an article that needs expansion (and has the tag). I think I'll work on that, stop wasting your time on TfDs like this, no one gives a crap. All tags can be mis-used, if you see it mis-used, just remove it.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. This template serves a very specific purpose, which is to request that an article be expanded using a specific source. As User:ASCIIn2Bme said in the earlier discussion, "I found it" [this template] "useful...when one finds obviously good sources, but doesn't have the time or inclination to expand the Wikipedia article" one's self. Furthermore, it often requires less skill to find good sources than to understand their content and translate it into language accessible to general readers. In many cases, anybody with a college education can do the former, whereas only experts have the requisite knowledge to do the latter. (And the presence of this template for an extended period of time can be explained by the fact that the experts in question rarely have the time to edit Wikipedia.) Bwrs (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bwrs, particularly on the point about it requiring less skill to find a source than to apply it in an article. Someone finding an article and recalling a specific source but lacking the expertise to complete the article themselves is hardly a very unlikely situation. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve' per Northamerica1000 - what is really needed is better documentation to discourage "lazy" misuse most opposes refer to. Also per Milowent if the template is not helpful on a specific article, simply remove the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I frequently come across pages for which this would be useful, and it has a more specific purpose than the "incomplete" template. I can't understand why we'd want to pretend that this issue doesn't exist, or use a more vague template when a specific one would more clearly indicate the issue. Saying that it encourages laziness is a bit like saying that the "cleanup" template encourages people to write rubbish and then tag it for someone else to clean up... well, maybe, but that's hardly it's only use. Anaxial (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Northamerica1000 - I'm feeling of having a repeated deja vu. All these maintenance template deletion discussions, this one, Template_talk:Cleanup#Should_the_reason_parameter_be_made_mandatory, and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_March_9#Template:Expert-subject, seem to come down to that what people are most upset about is their unspecific use when no reason is being provided. As for the other templates, the solution is to improve the template by mandating providing a reason for tagging, in this case, specific instructions and suggestions for expansion of the article. Nageh (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revise - this template needs to be revised to be more specific, but does not need to be deleted. It is useful to editors who are improving or writing an article from a list of sources tagged with this notice. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is is still here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Inline relevance cleanup tags[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Merge 1 and 3, no consensus on 2 The subtle difference between marking as "possibly irrelevant" and marking as "irrelevant but I don't know how to fix" mentioned in some comments was not addressed by the "merge all three" faction, but OTOH it was not well supported either. I have, for the moment, converted #2 to use Template:fix. Anomie⚔ 17:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Template:Relevance note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  2. Template:Relevance inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  3. Template:Off-topic-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge the latter two into the first, which uses standardized inline tag code. The second asserts rather than suggests, and the third is jargonistic, while the first suggests discussion. Move merged result to {{relevance inline}}. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Off-topic could be used to quickly mark the text as "relevant; does not belong to this article; potentially useful in another article". I believe there is no other inline template to fit this use. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It helps the closing admin if you bold your vote. Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. mabdul 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The second one is clearly inferior to the first. The third is similar enough. I've always wondered why we have {{who}}, {{whom}}, and {{whom?}}; this is basically the same thing but worse. At least the who-templates have vaguely different purposes. --NYKevin @020, i.e. 23:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They look like : 1.[relevant?] 2.[relevant?] 3. :[relevant?]. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Mege 3 into 1 and Keep 2. 2 is for when an editor knows something is irrelevant but has a problem removing it themsleves,for whatever reason (command of English, tortuous context, just not bold enough). Rich Farmbrough, 14:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep or Merge 3 into 1 and Keep 2. Tagremover (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge all three. Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox FEI World Equestrian Games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete —GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox FEI World Equestrian Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; superfluous to {{Infobox games}} (with which I just replaced the only 7 instances) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox HK District[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox HK District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 17 transclusions; redundant to {{infobox settlement}}, to which it should be made a front-end, then SUBSTed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, totally redundant. (how many settlement's templates are there left?) mabdul 20:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Created specifically for Hong Kong eighteen districts. Compare with similar infobox templates for US states, Japanese prefectures, Canadian provinces and territories, etc. 61.18.170.113 (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being . There are specific fields. Jeremy (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: can you direct me to them? I checked all and there are no specific fields! mabdul 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox storm[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox storm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 9 transclusions; redundant to {{Infobox hurricane}} (though this template has the better name), See also the ongoing Infobox winter storm TfD Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge this with the hurricane template (and the winter storm one too, ideally) and use this name in the end. Imzadi 1979 → 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all storm templates into this one (this has the generic name) 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While i welcome a review of the various weather related infoboxes i dont think merging any of them into the Infbox Hurricane would work since infobox hurricane contains several parameters that would not show up in an extratropical cyclone infobox without causing original research. So thus i oppose a merger of any infobox in to the infobox hurricane.Jason Rees (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't really know why we have this template because it is really redundant. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 19:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. A better target for the merge might be {{Infobox cyclone}}. {{Infobox hurricane}} has a substantially different format, as it prominently displays the tropical cyclone's classification in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, as well as another relevant tropical cyclone scale. The hurricane infobox is in fact built around that idea, so a hurricane→storm merger would lose a valuable (and IMO, critical) feature of the infobox. Also, there are no similar internationally-accepted, commonly-used classifications for mid-latitude cyclones, so a storm→hurricane merger would make little sense. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose suggested merge. I also agree that {{Infobox hurricane}} is not the template that needs altering or merging see [[1]]. I propose a merger of {{Infobox cyclone}}, {{Infobox winter storm}} and {{Infobox storm}} would be far more beneficial under the generic title of "storm" or "extratropical cyclone" and would more closely reflect meteorological differences and sources of data.Lacunae (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The hurricane one is different from any other infobox, due to the various basins involved (which affects the unit order). The storm one should not be merged to the hurricane one, since hurricane is only for actual tropical cyclones. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox criminal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox criminal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox person}}, which has direct equivalence for all parameters save |motive=, which can be added to the latter (as |criminal_motive=), if widely use in the nominated template (this tracking category should confirm). Here's a sample conversion, though the full job would best be done by front-ending then SUBSTing, perhaps followed by a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—as redundant. Imzadi 1979 → 20:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is used in so many articles and is working great. If it aint broke dont fix it!.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:BROKE in this case. {{infobox person}} could theoretically supersede every other person-related infobox, and I'm sure it already covers several other infobox templates as well. However, deletion is simply unnecessary and would be a waste of time. It's widely known, widely used, and is working just fine, as BabbaQ says. Swarm X 06:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be a legitimate response if I made a slippery slope argument, which I did not. Swarm X 20:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very useful to have a ready made infobox for criminals with all the appropriate parameters. One key difference is that we are more cautious about adding relatives to criminal infoboxes and the guidance contained within the infobox for this is very useful. I would expect to see more good faith but inappropriate additions of relatives to the infoboxes of criminals in future were this deleted.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how you think using {{Infobox person}} would cause "inappropriate additions of relatives to the infoboxes of criminals"; and why a the short copy of {{Infobox person}}, like that at Template:Infobox person/doc#Blank template with basic parameters, an "with all the appropriate parameters", would not be as useful as this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because, as I already said, the criminal infobox has specific guidance within it. This is not contained in {{Infobox person}} and I certainly found the information to be helpful in the past and I expect others have done too. At the very least we'd need to add mroe guidance to infobox person were we to delete infobox criminal--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've just refuted your own objection; we can deal with the issues that concern you by including reference to them in documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't actually voted either way as of yet, I was just highlighting an additional issue that everyone else had missed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgh. Really? This is coatrack territory: if a person is primarily notable because of a specific crime, we should have an article about the crime and not the person. That alone should be sufficient to get rid of this template. Furthermore, this template is insufficient for at-a-glance information on notable criminals anyway (as it is primarily set up to document single crimes): is tax evasion really the main thing we want to draw readers' attention to in the article for Al Capone? So it's not "working great" at all. I'd recommend having a discussion at template talk:infobox person as to how to document criminal convictions in that template, but that certainly isn't a prerequisite to the deletion of a rather poor little infobox with <2000 transclusions of which a great many would seem to be either inappropriate or poorly-worked due to the template's failings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. While I can see the possible use for an infobox on criminals, the best place for inclusion of the information is at infobox person. If they are best known for their criminal activity, then this will be shown here. However, if they are best known for other activity, and their criminal behaviour is worth noting, this should be included in the personal infobox, which can easily be done. Rangasyd (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it doesn't make sense to merge all person related infoboxes - better populate this one. (Hey, OJ Simpson has the wrong transcluded XD) mabdul 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I second Mabdul's rationale. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its used by a rather large number of articles about famous criminals [2] starting with Al Capone. Sometimes people are famous for being criminals. You can't take a generic infobox for people, and add in characters for every possible thing that might belong there. No reason for it. Best to have their own infobox. I notice that serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer have their own infobox as well, which list how many victims they had. Dream Focus 01:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox serial killer}} hasn't been nominated here, and indeed it does focus on those aspects of the subject which are of particular note. This template does not. The Capone example is a particular egregious case, what with Capone's "crime" as listed in his infobox being of almost zero relevance to his wider criminal career. Fixing that is non-trivial, and not worth doing in a forked infobox at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody proposes to "add in characters for every possible thing that might belong there"; that's a slippery slope fallacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some people are notable for being criminals and there is nothing wrong with naming an infobox so as to inform people in which articles it ought to be placed. Night Ranger (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While there may be problems with some few parameters in the infobox, the infobox is highly useful for individuals best know for their criminal careers in organized crime, and such information cannot be readily incorporated into the already-lengthy "infobox person" template. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no: it's actually extremely poorly suited for career criminals, due to the limitations of the parameters it uses. Fixing that would be possible, but it's far more likely that the majority of current transclusions are too poor in that respect to bother. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide an example of such a person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widely used infobox containing useful guidance. I really don't see any argument for deletion, if people feel the infobox needs further improvement then I would support that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite some parameters being repeated, the problem is not within the Criminal template but with the Person template. Parameters such as "allegiance, charge, conviction, conviction_penalty, conviction_status" should exist only in the criminal template yet several of these exist in the Person template (criminal_charge, criminal_penalty, criminal_status). The problem is the Person template is attempting to cover too much ground. As a 2nd (and follow-up) observation, if the Criminal template was to be eliminated on the grounds of redundnacy, then we might as well eliminate several others, such as "Officeholder", and keep expanding the Person template forever since every officeholder, like every criminal, is first a person anyway. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
    • Office holders have a great number of domain-specific fields. They are often more notable for these fields than for most other parts of their lives. That is not the case for "criminals": if a criminal is primarily notable for a given crime, then per WP:ONEEVENT we should have an article on the crime rather than the person. And presently, this template is set up primarily for that use case, and works poorly for career criminals. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chris, criminals also have a great deal of domain-specific fields. Some of them are already in the Criminal Infobox, but others are not yet coded in it. It is great to see the fields Conviction, Conviction_penalty, and Conviction_status, already in the Criminal infobox, but others that are still needed are the likes of: (1)Reward_Amount, (2)Status (Fugitive, Arrested, Killed, etc), (3)Wanted_By (DEA, London Yard, Interpol, etc), (4)Partner (as in other criminals, not in the spousal sense), (5)Wanted_Since (1977, etc), and (6)Years_At_Large (23, etc [maybe coded as a function of Years_At_Large]). In addition to these, other fields would also be useful in the Criminal infobox, but the fact that some such fields appear only the Person template (such as (7)Predecessor, (8)Successor, [to quickly indicate, for example, who took over after the head of a crime family was assassinated] and (9)Comments) exacerbates the problem since a criminal article editor is forced to use the Person template because the Criminal template is currently lacking those fields. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
    • You appear to be opposing something related to another infobox, not this proposal. Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFFEISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately you missed my point Andy: What I said is that "the problem is not within the Criminal template but with the Person template, ...it is attempting to cover too much ground." If there was any ambiguity in my position, hopefully it will be crystal clear now! My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Oppose - And actually, we should remove the criminal related tags/labels from Template:Infobox person. While I think that merging the "by occupation" infoboxes makes sense to a point (though I think that Inforbox person may need a few more labels to facilitate the merging more cleanly), I think that in this case, we should really keep this separate from infobox person. That said, maybe this info shouldn't be in the "main" infobox at all? Or maybe as a separate template included inside the infobox. Either way, I don't think infobox person should have these lines available for every person article. - jc37 18:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be opposing something related to another infobox, not this proosal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all. I am opposing the deletion/merging of the nominated template into infobox person. And am agreeing with the above comments that infobox person should not be used in this way at all. I was merely suggesting that the criminal-related sections of infobox person and infobox criminal could be put into a separate template. Which should serve several purposes. Primarily that the infobox not automatically give the option for this info (ie "helping" well-intentioned editors from filling in data that may not be appropriate - and thus minimising disruption, as well as helping to avoid WP:BLP issues). That said, until such time as such a template is created (or perhaps infobox criminal redesigned as such), I'm saying I oppose the nom, and would even prefer that any criminal-related info currently placed in inforbox person to be removed and placed in infobox criminal. - jc37 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's been some race to delete templates lately, but it's the same as for Template:Infobox scholar - it will be much harder to use Infoboxen where the tags are some vague | known_for =, instead of | list_of_crimes =. The tag names makes it easier for editors to use the template right. I would rather prefer that the removal proposers start some maintenance project for personal infoboxen, so that superfluous template are more easily proven to be superfluous, f.ex. hypothetical Infobox Scholars with Infobox Academics. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Fb team Undy Athletic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb team Undy Athletic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No Content in Manual of Style Rahul Mothiya (Talk2Me|Contribs) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ophiuchus[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, but some consensus to rename. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ophiuchus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

all the recordings are redlinked. Frietjes (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It 'll be created later by any other user . So , not a big deal . Rahul Mothiya (Talk2Me|Contribs) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not about Ophiuchus. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the title {{Ophiuchus}} should be redirect to {{Stars of Ophiuchus}} 70.24.251.71 (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean up; we could plausibly end up populating this. This is a navbox, for navigation. It shouldn't list every member of the band unless they're intended to have articles. Also, it may be a good idea to move this per 70.24's suggestion. --NYKevin @778, i.e. 17:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily I'm no fan of creating navboxes before the articles, but in this case I think there's sufficient likelihood of all of the redlinks in question actually being filled out by content that deleting this would be a bit of a waste of time. Still, no great loss if it is deleted at this time, given the dearth of actual navigation in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_3&oldid=1089908967"